Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-03-11
HENRI r IDEAS.

~" e 'fAf" e.
HENRY GEORGES IDEAS.
What They Are And How They Are Mis-.
construed.
To Tie Editor Of TIE Register:
SIR:-I noticed in your issue of the sec,
Ond instant a communication from Me.
Geo. w. Thompson, in which he refers 70
Mr.. Henry Georges land theories in a way
that proves that Mr.. Thompson is not con-
yerSant with those theories.
Mr.. Thompson, in common with many
other intelligent people, evidently sup
poses that George is a Socialist. Nothing
could be farther from the truth. The
cardinal doctrine of socialism is that the
production and the distribution of wealth
shall be under the control and supervision
Of the State, while George believes and
teaches that only by allowing the lreeSt
scope to individual energy can the highest
industrial and social development De at
tanned.
There is q great misrepresentation, even
among Intelligent people, regarding the
political measures and methods advocated
by MIR. George, and ii the REGISTER will
kindly grant me the necessary space, |
will try to explain, briefly, what he pro-
poses to do, and how he proposes to do it.
His fundamental proposition is that all
citizens of u country have an equal ana
unalienable right to the land Of that cOun-
try. To the institution of the private
ownership of land he attributes the fact
that Notwithstanding constant improve
ment in the art of production, the earnings
of labor and capital constantly decrease.
Inventions and improvements have tire
mcndOusly increased the potency of labor
in the past fifty years, yet the condition of
the wOrkingman has not improved; on the
contrary, he is probably worse off to-day
than ever before. The earnings of capital
have also decreased rs evidenced by the
fall in the rate of interest.
There are three factors 10 production
land, labor, and capital. As our country
grows richer, land values constantly rise,
while the remuneration (relatiye to prOduc-
tom OF labor and capital constantly tails.
And increasing the productive power Of
labor and capital infinitely cannot increase
the earning Of either, pcrmanently-the
result would only he, ultimately, to in
crease land values.
Georges plan for MAXIM land the COM
mon property of all the people is very
simple and does not involve any shock or
sudden revolution. lie does not propose
Ia disturb any mans title to his land, but
simply To abolish all taxation, Except a
single tax on land values crciWSire Of i'm
p~rOCemcatS. This single tax to be gradual
~ raised until il equals the annual rental
value of the land, thus making the land
the property of all the people rs eltcctually
~ though the government held the land
titles. Land values are created by society,
not by the individuals who happen to own
the land. Landin itself has no value. \
lot in a large city will command an en0r-
nous price. Why? Because of the pres
ence Of population. Double population
ami yOu double the price OF lots. All move
away but the man who owns the lot, and
his lot is worth nothing. 10 whom then
do these values belong? Clearly, to the
whole people of the community, for by the
whole people are they created.
And the values that inhcre in land in
villages and in the country are Just as
surely the creation of the community as
are the values OF city lots.
George claims that if his plan was adopt
Ell there could be no speculation in land.
For no man could hold land with the eX-
pectItion of proiiting by a rise in its value,
because this rise would constantly be
taken in taxes. No man could hold land
without using it, rs his taxes would in that
ease be no lower than they would
be ii he put it to the highest
possible use. His taxes would not increase
because of any extra fertility conferred up.
on the land by the eNcrtionS of the holder,
Only the value conferred by society would
he taken tor the common purposes Of al
the people.
Under this plan IA great deal of the farm
land of the United States would 90 un
taxed, as the value of MANY farms remote
from business centres is purely speculative
Under this plan labor and capital would
divide cquitably between them all thC
wealth produced, rs land would not Absorb
any portion Of it. The wages Of agricul
tuTal labOrerS and farmers would increaS,
enormously, and this could not hut rails,
wages in all occupations. The whole mas,
of the people would participate in the ben,
etitS a. inventions and Improvements that
facilitated production. No man would
lack work, because labor could apply itSel
to natural resources without first paving
toll to the landowner. Every man whC
was not a lOaier, could live in comfort.
MIR. George also holds that those publ,
businesses that are essentially mOnOpO
listjc, such as the railroad, the telegraph
and the telephone services, should he car
ricd on by the government. OF all Amer
lean writers ON political economy, Henry
George Is undoubtedly the ahleSt. Iii,
Progress and Poverty has probably been
more widely read by thoughtful people
than any other book of the past quarter Of
q century. His views concerning land art
identical with those held by Herbert
Spencer, John Stuart Mill, De Lavelcy(
and Quesnay. Surely conclusions reached
by such men are at least worthy our eX
animation Herbert Spencer says that
equity sternly commands that We recoc,
niZc the co-heirShip of all men to the soil.
To deprive others of their rights to the ust
of the earth, is To commit a crime inferior
only IN wickedneSs to the crime of takins
away their lives or personal liberties
CHAS. ). PRIZER.
Reading, Pa, March 6, 81.
FINANCE AND TRADE.